The Conflicting Ideologies of East and West

The Tension between east and west has many forms and is supported by many very differing arguments. One of the causes of tension is supposed to be that the West has one ideology and the East has another. It is said in the West that the West is Christian, while the East is godless, and that the West loves freedom, while the East practices despotism, and that the West believes in self-determination for nations, while Russia is out for world conquest. A correlative set of beliefs exists in the Communist world: the West is said to entertain superstitions which help sinister influences to gain power; the vaunted freedom of the West is said to be only freedom for the rich and to have no purpose except exploitation. Communist countries call themselves "peace-loving" and are as persuaded of America's imperialism as America is of that of Russia. By means of these opposing beliefs, each side becomes persuaded that the other is wicked and that the destruction of the forces of evil is a noble work which must be performed at no matter what cost.

Although the ideological differences are sincerely believed by each party to justify its hostility to the other, I do not myself believe that ideological questions play any important part in causing the tension between East and West. I think, on the contrary, that they are propaganda weapons designed to stimulate warlike ardor and to convert neutrals. Whenever, in past history, two approximately equal states have had much more power than any others, they have been hostile and have fought each other until both were too exhausted to remain formidable. France and Spain, England and France, Germany and England have all, in turn, followed this pattern until now all have rendered themselves nearly powerless, and the old futilities have been taken up by America and Russia. All these various struggles had their ideological aspect, but all were, in fact, caused by love of power. The rest is merely an elegant decoration.

The evidences for this thesis are not far to seek. Western propagandists tell us that the West has noble aims, whereas the East is materialistic. But one of the most persuasive arguments for an American invasion of Cuba is that, if Castro is allowed to remain, real estate in Miami will not be worth 50 cents an acre. Throughout Latin America, and in various other parts of the world also, American influence is devoted to keeping corrupt, cruel tyrants in power because they are more convenient for American capitalists to deal with.

I do not wish to suggest that one side has a monopoly on humbug. East Germany is called "The German Democratic Republic," whereas it is, in fact, a military dictatorship established by an alien military power in the course of suppressing a popular revolution. But, although Russian humbug exists, I do not think it has ever surpassed in cynical pretense the Western contention that the West stands for what it calls "The Free World." The West is ready to accept Spain and Portugal as allies although both these countries have a despotism as ruthless as that of Russia in the worst days of Stalin. Nor is it only in allied countries that America shows indifference to freedom. Modern developments of capitalism have placed immense power in the hands of great industrial corporations, and those who do not submit to their dictation find scant respect for liberty. This was much less the case in earlier times. Capitalists were less organized and were often engaged in competition with each other. Craftsmen and peasants had a certain degree of economic freedom such as is now possessed only by the great magnates of industry. Freedom of the press, which has always been a liberal slogan, has now become almost completely a sham. Newspapers with large circulations depend for solvency upon advertisements, and wellpaid advertisements inevitably come almost wholly from the rich. It is true that in the Western world the press has a certain degree of legal liberty, but newspapers which oppose the Establishment cannot hope for large circulations, because they do not appeal to advertisers. The consequence is that the general public gets its news distorted and biased, and is kept in ignorance of many things which it is important that it should know. The most sinister example of this kind of distortion is the influence of the armament industry in repressing the facts about nuclear warfare, its probability and its destructiveness. In the West, the press is thus controlled by leading industrialists; in Russia, by leading politicians. The one system is no more democratic than the other.

There also is a tendency in the West to lay too much stress upon purely legal freedom and to ignore the economic penalties to which a man of unorthodox opinions is exposed. While he is a student at a university, he is spied upon by the authorities and, if his opinions are not wholly conventional, he finds, on leaving the university, that it is very difficult to secure a job. If he does succeed in this, he is liable to be harried by Congressional investigations which take up his time and are likely to leave him bankrupt. Is it to be wondered at that most men take pains to avoid such penalties?

I am not pretending that Russia is better in these respects. I am only contending that "The Free World" has become, everywhere, a beautiful dream which can be honestly believed in only by those who are ignorant of modern facts -- but these, unfortunately, constitute about 99 percent of the population.

It is ironic that the curtailment of freedom in the West has been chiefly due to the belief that the West is fighting for freedom. So long as East and West continue to regard each other as monsters of iniquity, freedom is sure to diminish in the West and will have difficulty increasing in the East.

This brings me to the question: What can be done to diminish the acerbity in the conflict of ideologies? Something can be done by an increase of social intercourse between East and West. But I do not think that anything very decisive can be done until ways are found of diminishing mutual fear. At present, most people on each side believe that the other may at any moment make a treacherous attack which will be utterly disastrous in its effects. This belief naturally engenders hatred of the other side. The hatred increases the other side's fear, and therefore the other side's armaments. The Russians talk about 100-megaton bombs, and we shudder and think how wicked they are. Our authorities, in return, boast of our numerical superiority in nuclear weapons. Each side, like a bragging schoolboy, says, "You're the ones who will be exterminated, while we shall survive." This is so childish that one would hardly have believed, in advance, that eminent politicians would talk such nonsense. And so, in a kind of deadly interchange, each increases its own danger in the attempt to decrease the danger of the other side. I do not see how this deadly spiral is to be overcome except by mutual disarmament. But there will not be disarmament until fear is lessened, and fear will not be lessened until there is disarmament. What can be done to find a way out of this tangle? Disarmament conferences keep on taking place, but it is understood on both sides that they are only a game to bemuse the populace and that they must on no account be allowed to lead to any good result. All the people engaged in this dangerous game know perfectly well that sooner or later it will lead to disaster. Perhaps tempers will be frayed beyond endurance, perhaps nervous apprehension will come to be thought worse than what it fears, perhaps an accident or a mistake will plunge the world into nuclear war. All these things may not be very probable, but sooner or later, if there is no change in public policy, one or another of them is almost a certainty.

There is one quite simple thing which could be done, however, and which would make all the difference. Each side must acknowledge that the destruction on both sides would probably be about equal and that nothing that anybody desires would result. Each side should say to the other, "We have a common interest, which is to remain alive. We also have a common enemy, which is nuclear weapons. Let us conquer the common enemy and pursue our common interest in peace. Let us hate armaments instead of hating half of those who wield them. At present, both halves are mad, and each hates the other half for being mad. It is absurd that such a state of affairs should be prolonged by men with any shred of rationality."

I believe that if either Kennedy or Khrushchev were to stand up at a disarmament conference and make this speech, the world would rise to applaud him, and the merchants of death who at present govern our policies would slink away and hide to escape the common detestation which they have so amply earned. I shall be told that this is a foolish vision of an idealist out of touch with reality. Reality, I shall be told, is corpses. Anything else is an idle dream. Perhaps those who say this are right, but I cannot think so. I am persuaded that one eminent man, whether Russian or American, could, given courage and eloquence, convert the world to sanity and allow mankind to live in joy rather than perish in futile agony.